Heh heh....
I saw Ben Stein on one of those talking-heads financial shows last September. He was waxing poetic about out how the subprime/mortgage crisis was overblown and how companies like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Bear-Stearns, etc. were great investments because their stock prices had been depressed by emotional over-reactions to problems with home mortgages.
I can only hope that lots of creationists have been taking Mr. Stein's financial advice, because they'll soon be bankrupting themselves out of existence!
He's a winner all around, isn't he?
You didn't break Godwin's Law . . . Godwin's Law predicts that Hitler will be mentioned every so often, IIRC
True, Monkay, but by referencing Hitler in the post itself, before discussion, I thought I might be violating the spirit of the law, at least. But, given the nutbar quote, it needed to be violated.
Dictionary definition - to lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
to your point #1- Mathis 'presumed' that Dawkins flew to Minneapolis to see the preview. He didn't say that he 'knew' it, it was an assumption. An assumption is not a lie.
to your point #2 - Mathis was talking about how Dawkins had handled himself honorably in the past - perhaps he was talking about in his personal interactions. Just because Dawkins may have said something differently, which could be interpreted as 'dishonorable' in a book, doesn't mean that Mathis could have considered Dawkins' behavior to have been honorable in the past. This is not a lie.
to your point #3- Mathis had an 'opinion' that Dawkins withered in the Q&A. Just because you have a different 'opinion' does not mean that Mathis' opinion is a lie.
to your points #4 & 5 - Mathis said while the movie was being made an even today that it was an even-handed discussion of ID and Darwinistic evolution. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean that Mathis is supposedly 'lying'.
Katg... and just because you've been brainwashed doesn't mean that you would know the truth if it bit you in the ass, or rapturously embraced you like one of Pharyngula's beloved cephalopods.
Besides what I pointed out, the one blog I linked had even more lies. I love it when bible-thumpers, who lecture us on the moral decline of "secular America," get caught in a whole series of deliberately told whoppers.
Mark Mathis is Leni Riefenstal 70 years later.
Mark Mathis is Leni Riefenstal 70 years later.
now that's nothing but base slander, gadfly. Leni Riefenstahl was a genuinely good director, however despicable her subject matter.
Well, "base slander" might be too harsh, especially since Riefenstahl's name usually brings up the meme of "propaganda director" and not "quality movie director," whether she actually was or not.
And, while I agree she was a quality director, nonetheless, I was tapping into the meme of "Leni Riefenstahl as propaganda movie director."
An almost certain lie:
"both (scientists) had earlier complained that they originally agreed to appear in the movie” then called "Crossroads" because producers told them it would be an examination of religion and science, not a defense of intelligent design"RD and PZM were interviewed summer of 2007. Mathis had already registered his domain name "expelledthemovie.com" in January 07. There is no record of registering any variant of "Crossroads" as a movie. Mathis&Co. also created a cutout company (with no past record) just for this movie, instead of using their existing production company with its evangelical xian trackrecord.
Exactly, Foggg.. that's in the link to "more lies" I have at the end of my post.
Socraticgadfly- I'll take a look at your linked in blog if you can prove the first 5 points that you call 'lies' are actually lies. You haven't proved it yet. Your reply didn't contain any rational arguments, only broad generalizations and mischaracterizations based on your assumptions about certain types of people.
Don't bother looking at the links, then, Kat. It's a free country.
A pleasure to find your blog and a good chuckle to boot. Has anyone looked into Ben's financial involvement with the film? :^) I know, mean... but the simplest explanation is usually suggestive.
Best,
Mp
Peterson... he probably invested the bucks in some CDOs, SIVs (the money-guzzling equivalent of an SUV) or more. Nice video on the GWB library.... sadly, right here in the DFW Metromess.
Aside from the fact that Ben Stein is a douche--yet perhaps wisely orchestrating a scandal which will prove good for the box office--it seems to me to be a chicken coming home to roost.
PZ, and several other pseudo-progressive bloggers have a nasty nasty habit of censoring or 'expelling' the views of people they disagree with in blog posts and then "disemvoweling" them,lying about them and having a general hey day leveling flasehoods/presumptions, etc. amongst their own minions.
The chicken has evoved into a vulture, doing on a larger scale the same carniverous activity that is done on the smaller scale progressive blogs daily.
Any long-time reader of Pharyngula knows that the claims of "the real cmf" about the blog are bald-faced lies. He may be one of the trogs who got kicked off for trolling, and it still galls him.
Thanks for the watchword, Cortx.
See what I am talking about? You proved my point: and so, too, it goes both ways--it could easily be said by Stein that PZ was "trolling his premier." So no harm done right?
CortxVortx, I don't even know you, and your attempted nullification of valid critique is prima facie that snipy tits and tats ain't lost on right-wing-nutz alone.
Grow up.
It takes a concerted effort on the part of the troll to get censored (via "disemvoweling") on Pharyngula. Only after continued abuse by (not of) the troll does PZ ban him from the blog.
Compare this with, say, the IDiot site "Uncommon Descent," where critical comments are routinely deleted.
"Valid critique" in porcine hindquarters. "Symbolic of his struggle against reality" is more like it.
Cortx.. it's not just IDers. Look at political blogs. How many right-wing blogs don't let you e-mail the blogger, for example?
And, CMF, just how DO you know about disemvoweling?
Again: these posts do not genuinely address or adequately refute the substance of my comment--so what is the point of answering your question?
Now, it seems that the chickens have evolved into porcine hindquarter munchers, intent on NOT responding to VALID comparisons--a concerted efforet is NOT required to get disemvoweled--merely a persistent, and oppposed viewpoint.
Censorship is censorship folks--whether it is the porcine hindquarter obsessed left, or the infantile right.
That is my point. Oh, yeah--and that vultures of a feather flock together--whether it is Cortx nibbling at pork butts, or Ben Stein, or PZ.
What comes around, goes around. That's all, and like it or not, this is the case in this case.
p.s.
Socratic G, I cyberported over to your blog, and found the answer to the question you asked above--and an answer that read like one that I might have written myself on a good day
Here is my answer:
Because "I'm an oft-times willful and deliberate contrarian, infused with a stubborn streak of common-sense informal logic. I don't accept orthodoxies of left or right. Beyond that, I'm an existentialist secularist who loves classical music, hiking in the West, nature photography, bad puns, writing poetry, ethnic cooking and much more..."
In other words, sometimes my sense of humor gets me in trouble--I enjoy using blogs as a kind of rough draft
Katg: Sorry, but misrepresenting a (false) assumption as a fact, and for blatantly self-serving reasons (in this case, to make "Expelled" seem more important a movie than it is), IS lying.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people argue that deceit isn't dishonest, using overly literalistic and lawyerly parsing of the dictionary to "prove" it.
DH, but, it's a faith-based lie!
Commenting by HaloScan
